Heard Mr. RL Yadav, learned counsel, for the petitioners, who are accused in Complaint Case No.129/2006, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon. 2. By making this application, under Section 482 Cr.PC., the accused-petitioners have put to challenge the order, dated 30.06.2006, passed, in Complaint Case No.129/2006, by the learned Court below taking cognizance of offence under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC and directing issuance of process against the present petitioners fixing the case for their appearance. 3. The complainant’s case is, in brief, thus: There was a partnership firm, which was run under the name and style of M/s. Nandan and Brothers. The firm carried on its business both at Bongaigaon as well as Dhubri. However, due to demise of one of the three partners of the said firm, namely, late Arijit Kumar Das, in the year 1994, the remaining partners decided to close down their business, at Dhubri, with the company, whom the accused-petitioners represent, and to continue their business at Bongaigaon. Having closed down the business at Dhubri, the complainant requested the accused-company to return, in terms of the agreement, which the accused-company had with the said firm, the sum of Rs.5,000/-, which had been deposited with the accused-company as security money and also the credit balance inasmuch as the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties concerned were to the effect that at the time of winding up of partnership, security money as well as the credit balance shall be refunded by the company with interest, which may accrue thereon. However, instead of making payment to the complainant, the accused-company sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs.5,013/- in the name of the said firm; but as the bank account, earlier standing in the name of the said firm, had already been closed, the remaining partners, including the complainant, could not withdraw the said sum of money. Thus, the dues of the accused-company remained unpaid. This was followed by a demand notice, which was sent by the complainant to the accused-company. Thus, the dues of the accused-company remained unpaid. This was followed by a demand notice, which was sent by the complainant to the accused-company. Pursuant to subsequent reminders and demands raised, the accused-company, once again, on 06.03.2000, sent a letter along with a demand draft of Rs.8,053/- in the name of the said firm and as the complainant could not withdraw the said amount on the ground that the bank account, standing in the name of the said firm, stood closed, a complaint has been made, which has led to the issuance of processes against the accused- petitioners as indicated above. 4. Appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, Mr. Yadav, learned counsel, submits that the complaint does not, even if the allegations made therein are assumed to be true, make out any case of commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust by the accused-company and/or by the accused-petitioners. As against the submissions so made, on behalf of the accused-petitioners, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party, submits that the conduct of the accused-company, whom the accused-petitioners represent, clearly indicate that the intention of the accused-company and of the accused-petitioners is not to make payment of the dues of the complainant and that was the reason why the demand drafts were being repeatedly sent by the accused-company in the name of the firm, which stood already dissolved and this fact was well within the knowledge of the accused-company and its functionaries. 5. What is, now, necessary to note is that subsequent to passing of the impugned order, a letter was issued by the accused-petitioners, addressed to the complainant, informing the complainant to the effect that they were enclosing with the letter, dated 28.05.2006, a draft indemnity bond, which shall be furnished by the complainant on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.25/- on the same having been signed by the partners of M/s. Nandan and Brothers so as to enable the accused-company make payment of the dues of the said firm. A draft indemnity bond was accordingly enclosed. 6. Appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, Mr. Choudhury has pointed out that an authorization to receive the dues of the dissolved partnership firm was duly issued by Smti. Chinmoyee Das, the sole legal representative of Late Arajit Kr. Das, who was a partner of the said firm. A draft indemnity bond was accordingly enclosed. 6. Appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, Mr. Choudhury has pointed out that an authorization to receive the dues of the dissolved partnership firm was duly issued by Smti. Chinmoyee Das, the sole legal representative of Late Arajit Kr. Das, who was a partner of the said firm. The fact that there exists, on record, an authorization duly given by Smti. Chinmoyee Das could not be disputed and this authorization could have been acted upon by the accused-petitioners. At the same time, the accused-petitioners cannot blamed for having taken necessary steps to safeguard their interest by ensuring that an indemnity bond was given by all concerned and accordingly, a copy of the indemnity bond, as indicated above, has been sent to the complainant. 7. Situated thus, both the parties, now, agree, as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, that the indemnity bond, in respect of the security money as well as credit balance, shall be executed by the complainant, the surviving partners of the said firm and the widow of late Arajit Kr. Das and the same, on being sent to the accused-petitioners, the accused-petitioners shall, within a week thereafter, send requisite demand draft in the name of the complainant. 8. In the backdrop of the settlement, which has been arrived at, as indicated above, this Court does not find that any purpose would be served by continuing with the present application, more particularly, when the anxiety and concern of the accused-petitioners to safeguard their interest, before money is paid to the complainant, cannot be said to be wholly without foundation, irrational, unreasonable or untenable. 9. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this criminal petition succeeds. The order, taking cognizance of the offences against the accused-petitioners, is hereby set aside and quashed. 10. Before parting with this criminal petition, it is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall, in terms of the undertaking given by them as mentioned above, act upon their undertaking. 11. With the above observations and directions, this criminal petition shall stand disposed of. 12. Send back the LCR. _____________